Replies

>>>Personally, I think all this talk of Ron Paul being a strict constructionist in the mold of the founding fathers is nothing but BS.<<<

But you have yet to prove it except with innuendo, false premises, and hair-splitting.

You just don't get it, do you. The fact that foreign assistance is official U.S. Policy means that it is, ipso facto, constitutional, and it is up to those who disagree with it to show that it is not constitutional. That means you have the burden of proof.

When I started my exchange with you earlier in this thread, I gave you the opportunity to make your case, along with hints at where the obstacles were. You took that opportunity and tossed it.

Since it hasn't sunk in yet, I'll spell it out for you. Foreign assistance works in exactly the same way that tribute does...as a function of national defense, as you correctly observed, and so long as it is operating in the interests of national security, it doesn't matter what you call the money, as you also correctly observed. You can call it "tribute," you can call it "extortion," you can even call it "protection," it doesn't matter because the the inherent moral implications aren't relevant from a legal point of view, and that is exactly where trip up your argument. You need to make a legal case rather than a moral.

I'm more than a little surprised that as an engineer, you don't seem to be able to transfer your logical skills to politics, then again, cognitive dissonance is anything but logical.

You guys scare me as much, if not more than Obama supporters. After all, you're right here amongst us.